Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

The worm is on the upper stage this time, I don't think the first stage has one.

Which means the worm is expended and the booster doesn't have a worm on it when it gets reused for non-NASA missions.

Sad but probably necessary to mollify some critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2020 at 12:20 PM, Deddly said:

Doesn't methane burn cooler than RP1? 

I missed this before, but they can control how hot the flame gets if they want to, by controlling the oxygen/methane ratio.

That being said, gas turbine engines routinely have temperatures in their primary combustion zone that are hot enough to destroy their combustors in minutes. But they last for many thousands of hours because of active and passive cooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I missed this before, but they can control how hot the flame gets if they want to, by controlling the oxygen/methane ratio.

That being said, gas turbine engines routinely have temperatures in their primary combustion zone that are hot enough to destroy their combustors in minutes. But they last for many thousands of hours because of active and passive cooling.

I think we were talking about the launch pad, weren't we? Either way, I did find a source about combustion temperatures of these two fuels:

"the chamber temperature of a Methane rocket is 3533K, comparable to the RP-1 3676K chamber temperature. 

But as you say, it does depend on how rich the ratio is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I missed this before, but they can control how hot the flame gets if they want to, by controlling the oxygen/methane ratio.

That being said, gas turbine engines routinely have temperatures in their primary combustion zone that are hot enough to destroy their combustors in minutes. But they last for many thousands of hours because of active and passive cooling.

Engine is actively cooled by the fuel. Now cooling the flame diverter has the benefit that they don't have mass constrains. 
You can probably even cool with liquid nitrogen who has the benefit of turning into gas so no need to have drain systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few theories I've seen:

It's pad concrete that didn't really set. This wouldn't be too bad to fix, although the landing pad might need some work before the hop.

It's equipment that was accidentally left on the pad (hopefully not Zeus!). This would need a review of the procedures before static fires/launches, but wouldn't be too bad.

It's pieces of Raptor. This would be really bad if the Raptor hasn't been fully reliable all this time. Probably least likely, as the debris shooting out don't really match the Raptor's firing up much.

 

In good news, at least header tank propellant flow worked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it could be an engine.  They're up inside the rocket, if it was pieces of an engine, there wouldn't be much of a rocket left.  Plus the static fire would have ended sooner, I think they were only firing one engine.  At least that's what the NSF guys said.

I did see a fire underneath for a couple seconds afterwards, though that looked like it had to be extinguished... hard to tell though with all the smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I'm most concerned about the groaning sound at the end.

To me, it sounds similar to that science experiment where you combust gas in a tall glass beaker. Some times referred to as barking dog, or hydrogen bark. I don't think it's anything unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Either that or it went so wrong that repairs are necessary...

Yeah, that's possible too. Someone (I think it was on reddit) speculated that the engine they were testing was on max gimbal to simulate the landing burn, and it blew some chunks out of the launch pad. Alternatively, it could have been ice, but I'm not sure about that. We'll know how it went for sure if new road closures are posted, or if a Raptor is replaced again.

Edited by RealKerbal3x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2020 at 8:16 PM, RCgothic said:

Which means the worm is expended and the booster doesn't have a worm on it when it gets reused for non-NASA missions.

Sad but probably necessary to mollify some critics.

Other customers probably want their own logo and NASA might object to spaceX using their logo on an starlink mission for reason as in people thinking NASA is part of starlink. 
Yes you could probably ask and pay for an falcon 9 paint job if you wanted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Did I misunderstand something? Wasn't the 15 km hop supposed to be today (instead of static fire)?

There's no temporary flight restriction currently posted in Boca for that altitude, so no (the only TFR currently posted is a low-altitude one in case of an RUD). Today's test will probably be another static fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...